TAMAM v. Wiam Tamam, Real Party in Interest. (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant petitioner's motion for reconsideration of a minute order setting aside a divorce decree.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222. 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded, that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a written order setting aside the default divorce decree below would not afford a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy. See NRS 34.170; NR.AP 3A(b)(8); Vargas v. J. Morales Inc., 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 38, 510 P.3d 777, 779 (2022) (clarifying that this court has appellate jurisdiction over orders granting an NRCP 60(b)(1) motion that was filed more than 60 days after entry of a default judgment). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.